61

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: January 06, 2022, 12:47:16 AM »

No, "navigation" doesn't imply that you are in a ship on the ocean.

Obviously, you could be on a sailboat, a life raft, or on an airplane.  A nice road map would even be handy if you were driving a car.  ‘Navigation’ implies operating and/or planning a trip on your relevant conveyance, between two, or more, points on the earth.  It’s obvious that to do that job safely and efficiently that you have an accurate map that can be used to determine distances and bearings between any two points on the map. 

62

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: January 06, 2022, 12:43:05 AM »

You don't need a map to go from one coordinate to the next and to navigate between two points. In the North the coordinates are based on the altitude of Polaris (which latitude is based on, which is why 90 degrees N is the North Pole) and timezones (which longitude is based on). With that you can travel between any two points in the North.

Wrong.
 When you are navigating a ship between two ports on the Pacific Ocean, for example, you always want to have an accurate map showing all the relevant land masses and sea mounts or other locations where there may be obstacles to navigation.  At any moment along the way you may be required to change course because of weather, or other factors.  It is always critical that a good voyage plan has been made before leaving the dock, but that plan is subject to change when factors change along the way.  Maps are updated on a regular basis as well.  The fact of the matter is that it would be illegal for a ship or an aircraft to depart without relevant maps showing the areas where they expect to go.  An accurate map is obviously a critical safety factor.   

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?

« on: January 01, 2022, 09:32:24 PM »

Pilots always know exactly how fast over the ground they are flying.  They also know the exact distance between the two airports they are flying between.  What isn’t known is the exact optimal route they need to fly when winds are taken into consideration.  Airline companies have, or hire, flight planning personnel to design the optimal flight route.  Computers are used along with all the available wind & temperature data to plan the best route to minimize the flight times and/or fuel burn for the individual aircraft.  Once an aircraft departs conditions can change.  On a short flight the differences are insignificant.  If a flight is 15 hours long, then obviously things can change a lot while enroute.  New flight plans can be sent to the airplane and/or the pilot in command can make some alterations in the route.  An airliner flying at 40,000 feet on a 5000-mile flight would also need to fly an additional 9.5 miles more than the exact distance on the ground between the two airports.  When you add an additional 7.5 miles to the radius of the curve you will have a longer path.       

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?

« on: January 01, 2022, 04:19:27 PM »

The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.

Incorrect. The technology is there today to make accurate distance measurements even in the middle of the worlds oceans.

I think you mean that there is technology to get your coordinate position. Actually physically measuring distances over long distances is a lot harder.

There are other technologies I’ve seen used on military ships (I can’t discuss) that can be used to measure the physical distances of the underlying land in the world’s oceans.  It doesn’t matter much to anyone because GPS is available, and it’s been shown that the two methods of measurement correlate exactly.  These days all you really need are the coordinates of two points on the earth and an accurate distance measurement can be determined.     
   

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?

« on: January 01, 2022, 03:49:35 AM »

The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.

Incorrect. The technology is there today to make accurate distance measurements even in the middle of the worlds oceans.

66

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts

« on: December 31, 2021, 02:32:52 AM »

Before leaving a dock at a foreign country we had a weather map sent to us from a weather forecasting and weather routing service in the USA.  Then about twice a day we would get updates.  A recommended route was given with the expected weather and sea conditions posted for our route.  It wasn’t too bad.  We would always download the satellite weather maps as well for comparison.  The weather forecast was very important for our journeys of about 6200 miles across the Pacific.  Avoidance of the typhoons was always a good thing, so the weather forecasts was essential to our wellbeing. 

67

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts

« on: December 30, 2021, 09:03:58 PM »

Also remember that weather forecasters need weather observations to build their models.  About 70% of the earth’s surface is covered with water and the number of weather stations there is lacking.  Commercial ships carry weather stations aboard and transmit the readings about twice a day back to shore.  Unfortunately, the readings they provide don’t cover the whole ocean on a regular predictable basis.  Any readings obtained from ships are spotty. 

68

Technology & Information / Re: Pacific garbage patch

« on: December 26, 2021, 08:21:24 PM »

Yes, I have been thru the Pacific Ocean garbage patch countless times on my journeys aboard ships and have personally seen the garbage while on great circle routes to and from the West Coast of the USA.  I’m glad to see that there’s an attempt to clean it up.  Now if we could only start cleaning up the flat earth fantasy garbage patch that’s swirling around on the internet worldwide.  Everyone can start by cleansing their mind of the flat earth lies.  Start slowly, debunk them one at a time.  You can do it!

69

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: December 26, 2021, 02:51:25 AM »

I might have fallen for it but I can spot CGI and wires too. 

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites

« on: December 20, 2021, 04:57:40 PM »

The INMARSAT and KVH satellites try to remain stationary above a particular location above the earth.  If the earth were flat and accelerating at 9.81 m/s upwards towards the satellite then, in order to maintain a fixed altitude above a specified location, all the geosynchronous satellites would have to accelerate at the same 9.81 m/s.  The energy required to maintain the acceleration could come from fuel aboard the satellite or from the same ‘dark energy’ that powers the earth’s upward acceleration.  Both of these possibilities are not practical or likely. 

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator

« on: December 20, 2021, 05:04:21 AM »

Per the question of where the energy for comes from; since it is beneath the earth and inaccessible that is a question easily left as unknown. While we can directly see and experience the mechanical action of the earth's upward movement, we are ignorant of the energy source below. The phenomenon of "gravity" is as equally deficient in its explanation for where all of the energy comes from for matter to pull matter, and that usually gets glossed over.

There isn’t any energy necessary for the perception of gravity to occur.  Nothing has been ‘glossed’ over.  It’s well known that mass influences relative time.  If you step off the chair your clock moves a bit faster, and you traverse thru spacetime just a bit quicker than the earth does and very quickly you close the distance between you and the earth and your mass and the mass of the earth try to occupy the same place at the same time.  This is the point where you feel the force on your feet.  That force is what makes your journey thru space time, with your faster clock, the same as the earth as per the well know formula F=MA.  Therefore, inertial mass, and your measured mass are identical because you are effectively measuring the same thing.  If you want to solve a mystery why not think about how mass can slow down time relative to another clock on a different smaller mass?

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites

« on: December 20, 2021, 03:06:05 AM »

There’s a major problem with geosynchronous satellites under the FET.  Satellites will have different masses when in orbit over the earth.  Even an individual satellite’s mass will change as the fuel aboard burns off to make small position adjustments from time to time.  This means that dark energy will have to somehow adjust its force upwards to maintain the constant 9.81 m/s acceleration rate.  How can the dark energy have the intelligence (or programming) to make these fine adjustments?

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites

« on: December 19, 2021, 01:34:20 AM »

I can understand the fallacy of the earth ‘shielding’ the dark energy.  Mostly the geosynchronous satellites are above the equator.  That would mean the dark energy would have to go around the edge of the earth and come all the way back inside then turn 90 degrees again and provide a push upwards to the satellites.  This push would have to be quite exact to match the upwards acceleration of the earth.  The energy would have to be ‘smart’ as well.  There are different sized satellites up there so the dark energy couldn’t provide a specified push per square foot.  Each push would have to be customized for each individual satellite.  On the trip from the earth’s edge toward the equator the dark energy would have to avoid interacting with all the other satellites up there and the space stations.  Some other mechanism would also be necessary to do the dark energy diversions and that mechanism would also have to be accelerating upwards as well. All these tricks would have to be accomplished without producing any signal interference.  That’s quite a large order and would take a very ‘imaginative’ mind to understand and believe how this could all work. 

74

Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites

« on: December 18, 2021, 06:40:30 PM »

Under FET the satellites would all have to have a large fuel source and rocket motors in order to maintain a constant 9.81 m/s upwards acceleration rate.  This requirement would greatly shorten the life of any satellite.  The INMARSAT and the newer KVH TracPhone satellites have been in orbit for years so this invalidates the UA argument in one simple shot. 

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites

« on: December 16, 2021, 08:43:17 PM »

Geostationary satellites are not practical under the flat earth scenario.  Once they are in position, they would have to keep accelerating up to remain in position relative to the surface of the earth.  That would require fuel and/or a push by the ‘dark energy’.  There are some other observed real-world discrepancies as well.  When you watch the needed elevation settings to keep a dish pointing at a satellite over the earth’s equator while on a moving object, like a ship, those readings do NOT match what would be expected on a flat surface.  The satellite signal ‘sets’ behind the horizon and the signal is lost as the required dish elevation must get lower & lower as the ship moves away from the satellite’s zenith point over the equator.  That would not happen on a flat earth.  All of this has been personally observed in the Zetetic manner countless times.

76

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: America's healthcare isn't broken....

« on: December 13, 2021, 07:23:33 PM »

Somehow, I figured out how to buy & sell stocks when I was just 21 years old and didn’t have much money.  These days it’s a whole lot easier.  There are many online stockbrokers and once you have an account you can buy & sell using your computer.  I’ve been doing it for many decades.  You need to restrict your stock purchases to those ‘greedy’ companies who, in your opinion, are really screwing their customers and are racking in the money.  What could go wrong with that strategy?   

77

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: America's healthcare isn't broken....

« on: December 13, 2021, 06:30:21 PM »

If anyone feels that an insurance company is raking in the bucks, big time, then why not just buy their stock and take your share of the profits?  The same could go to any corporation that is involved in the health care industry.  Most are large corporations with stock on sale in public markets that anyone can buy. 

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?

« on: December 11, 2021, 08:19:32 PM »

Rowbotham’s thesis was that the earth was flat, and a map was created.  This flat map was created with longitudinal lines diverging South of the equator.  There was a section in ENAG where an example of distance measurements was cited that supported this thesis.  Unfortunately (for Rowbotham) some mistakes were made.  The book “Earth Not A Globe” might have been written by a ‘scientist’ but not by a qualified navigator.  There might have been some scientific accreditations but those would NOT be relevant in this case. 

79

Technology & Information / Re: I Hate Linux Distros

« on: November 16, 2021, 04:24:38 AM »

I have a whole pile of computer certs (including Security+ ).  Some I needed for the last job I had before retirement.  The problem with stacking them is that they kind of 'expire'.  If you are not using the material the certs cover then you will forget a bunch after a while.  If the certs cover technology that becomes outdated then they are kind of worthless too.  After 3 or 4 years a lot of stuff has advanced and unless you keep taking tests every year or two you will fall behind. 

80

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory

« on: November 07, 2021, 06:18:07 PM »

I would say that using EA at this time to explain anything is invalid.  There's never been a published number for the Bishop Constant.  Without that how can you use EA to test anything?